Helpful hint: When the old geezer starts talking at about 6:40, go ahead and skip forward to 8:41. (You can tell by the look on his face that Bermas wished he could have done that too.) I just saved you 2 minutes of your life.

I had no idea what you were insinuating with "well at least kokesh seems to know his stuff"...as if there was some downside to him or something he said.

I initially said that because Kokesh didn't convince me, I've heard that stuff a million times before but I was also impressed that he clearly knows the arguments, he understands the premises, he does a pretty solid job of presenting the ideas. He did have a very solid argument against someone who basically accepted the premise of unconditional self ownership and property rights as a matter of principle. How can you at once talk about unconditional self-ownership and then say it's ok to tax people? That seems a little hypocritical. Not that hyprocrisy is an uncommon human trait or anything. In a game theory sense hyprocrisy may or may not be a smart tactic depending on how one expects people to respond to it. But I digress.

Kokesh never really entertains the possibility that people might be willing to do something that they might ordinarily think is wrong under extraordinary circumstances, that perhaps his inexorable moral rules are really just guidelines for others. He takes a sort of damn-the-torpedoes ethic here saying that if it's wrong it's wrong regardless of the context, an uncompromising view that has never appealed to me. Take for instance the example Bermas gives of emergency medical care. I'm with Bermas, I don't care if it means people are being forced against their will, I want emergency care when I need it. I'm willing to advocate the initiation of force to get that legal right even if I don't theoretically have a moral right to it. Perhaps Bermas is too even if he'd ordinarily disagree with me about other forms of the initiation of force. When faced with the logical consequences of his moral positions is Bermas really willing to go the distance to uphold them? Kokesh shows that he might not be. It's a game of chicken.

On any given day Bermas might consciously advocate unconditional self-ownership or whatever but also be aware that the day when he gets really hurt and needs medical attention he might not care if someone is being forced to take care of him. His brain knows this but his rational mind is attempting to rationalize the discrepancy away. He seems to be suffering from a kind of cognitive dissonance. He clearly wants to advocate something but he's not sure if he actually would want to live by it if it were applied consistently. Hence his entertaining response, basically trying to have his cake but also eat it too.

Bermas demonstrates the problem with moral principles: they're unconditional. Life, however, has changing conditions. One rule, one strategy is a self-imposed limitation. Different situations may necessitate different types of strategies, but people with moral principles must stick to their one rule regardless of what happens in order to remain consistent. One ends up feeling bound to a moral rule just for the sake of it. I can see it in Bermas' face, he's conflicted. Bermas can't just say what he's thinking because he's worried that he'll be viewed as less because of it and he wants to impress Kokesh. At the same time something just doesn't sit right in his mind. I wouldn't view him as any less but I'm probably the enemy in Bermas' eyes. Suddenly he's not sure what side he's on anymore. Can't say I would've been any less afraid though, Kokesh looks crazy. He's also bound up in the liberty movement and they have a tendency to eat their own the minute they suspect a heretic. They don't do compromise.

Kokesh never really entertains the possibility that people might be willing to do something that they might ordinarily think is wrong under extraordinary circumstances, that perhaps his inexorable moral rules are really just guidelines for others.

Wha? Of course he understands people do things they think are wrong. He's literally talking to one such person right at the moment he's making his case.

You make no sense.

I'm with Bermas, I don't care if it means people are being forced against their will, I want emergency care when I need it. I'm willing to advocate the initiation of force to get that legal right even if I don't theoretically have a moral right to it.

Exactly. You're essentially a moral relativist and have no real consistent philosophy for anything, as you've shown over the course of your posts here. You essentially just go along with whatever seems appealing to you and basically think violating the rights of others is fine as long as it's a case that you don't really care about, or it concerns something you don't like anyway, or especially, if you personally benefit from it.

Bermas can't just say what he's thinking because he's worried that he'll be viewed as less because of it and he wants to impress Kokesh.

I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me he said exactly what he was thinking and when it was immediately destroyed by Kokesh he had no more response and had to try to literally laugh it off. Multiple times. The entirety of his philosophy was shown to be as inconsistent and arbitrary as the movements of a decapitated chicken, and his depth of thought as shallow as a rain puddle, all in a matter of minutes. He wasn't holding anything back, quite simply, because he had nothing left to hold back. At one point he even admits "You're a smart guy, Adam. I don't even know what to say to that."

People don't say that when they want to impress someone. They say that when they are being shown up and want to save whatever dignity they have left by admitting they're out of their league and avoid looking more ignorant and inept than they already have.

At the same time something just doesn't sit right in his mind.

Well yeah...in a short conversation standing on a street curb someone has just rocked the foundation of the philosophical belief system he has held his entire life. Of course he looks conflicted.

Can't say I would've been any less afraid though, Kokesh looks crazy.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. He obviously at least knew who Kokesh was, if not already been acquainted with him in the past. The only thing he could have possibly been afraid of is looking even more dumb, or having more doubt enter his mind about beliefs he's held his entire life.

He's also bound up in the liberty movement and they have a tendency to eat their own the minute they suspect a heretic. They don't do compromise.

Eat their own? Do you have some examples?

And yes, "compromising" on principles is not something principled people tend to do. I don't see that as a vice.

Wha? Of course he understands people do things they think are wrong. He's literally talking to one such person right at the moment he's making his case.

You make no sense.

Yes but does he understand why?

Does he understand that not all people have principle values? Does he understand that some people might make exceptions to "moral rules" for practical purposes?

I mean what the hell is the point of having moral rules anyways if they're just going to be deadweight in a time of need?

JJ:

have no real consistent philosophy for anything, as you've shown over the course of your posts here. You essentially just go along with whatever seems appealing to you and basically think violating the rights of others is fine as long as it's a case that you don't really care about, or it concerns something you don't like anyway, or especially, if you personally benefit from it.

Sounds about right. Why is that a bad thing? I weigh issues. I try to consider trade-offs. I try think of things in terms of cost-benefit. It seems a logical way to think. I might be willing to violate someone's rights if I think I need to in order to get what I want (or need.) I might not. It depends. I expect the same from everyone else. That's how the real world game is played. People are rarely known quantities, life is inherently uncertain. I don't see any reason to have principle values in the world I live in. It seems to make far more sense to have variable values. I may or may not support something, I try to consider all the information I can before arriving at decisions. I don't want to be pinned down by any definite set of values. My values change depending on the context.

The funny thing is that while this guy Bermas might see me as an enemy, I'm probably more sympathetic to his views that Kokesh is.

JJ:

It seemed to me he said exactly what he was thinking and when it was immediately destroyed by Kokesh he had no more response and had to try to literally laugh it off. Multiple times. The entirety of his philosophy was shown to be as inconsistent and arbitrary as the movements of a decapitated chicken, and his depth of thought as shallow as a rain puddle, all in a matter of minutes. He wasn't holding anything back, quite simply, because he had nothing left to hold back. At one point he even admits "You're a smart guy, Adam. I don't even know what to say to that."

I think you see what you want to see. But then I probably do too.

I don't think Bermas knew how to present his points very well. So when he began to flounder he got embarrassed and frustrated. He was obviously not as well versed as Kokesh. Perhaps that's because Bermas has been a drone for so long that when he was finally asked real questions about the extent of his beliefs, he didn't know what to say. He looked to be struggling that whole time to me. Struggling to find the right words to describe his beliefs, struggling to find cohesion. Or maybe he just didn't realize that some of his beliefs were in contradiction with other beliefs. Perhaps he'd never given it enough thought. Some of these things may seem obvious to the initiated but the universal relevance of the principle values of libertarianism can take a while to really set in. I know it took me a while to realize why I could never be a libertarian. Five years really.

It's easy to repeat a stock phrase about "rights" it's another thing entirely to be asked to apply that stock phrase consistently to an entire worldview.

JJ:

People don't say that when they want to impress someone. They say that when they are being shown up and want to save whatever dignity they have left by admitting they're out of their league and avoid looking more ignorant and inept than they already have.

I do think he was trying to save face, but why? What's he got to lose here? His libertarian card?

JJ:

Well yeah...in a short conversation standing on a street curb someone has just rocked the foundation of the philosophical belief system he has held his entire life. Of course he looks conflicted.

Or maybe he was going through what I went through when I first encountered anarchists. Maybe he suddenly realized that he wasn't comfortable with the logical implications of his beliefs. Maybe he realized that he just couldn't really go along with it.

JJ:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. He obviously at least knew who Kokesh was, if not already been acquainted with him in the past. The only thing he could have possibly been afraid of is looking even more dumb, or having more doubt enter his mind about beliefs he's held his entire life.

Perhaps the doubt entering his mind is about the kind of company he's keeping. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to associate with anarchists. Kokesh looks scary to me, I'd want nothing to do with him.

JJ:

Eat their own? Do you have some examples?

This video? The distrust you've expressed for "left-libertarians" simply because they might not fit in lock stock and barrel with your ideas? The constant "who's a real libertarian" nonsense I've seen in the liberty movement since I became aware of it?

You guys regularly try to call out anyone who you don't think is libertarian enough. I'm sure right now Rand Paul is the new persona non grata after backing Romney. You guys get mad at someone just for playing ball. It's silly to me.

JJ:

And yes, "compromising" on principles is not something principled people tend to do. I don't see that as a vice.

That's exactly my point. Principled people pigeonhole themselves into one position. They cannot alter this position, they cannot compromise. They're predictable. They cannot readily adapt. They cannot adopt alternate strategies. They cannot support anything that might violate their principles even if it's only a little bit. They're easy to beat (EDIT: in games of strategy) unless everyone is exactly like them (EDIT: In which case someone will realize they need to adapt a more unprincipled set of values) but ofcourse people are rarely principled to begin with so principled people are always vulnerable to people willing to bend the rules even a little. EDIT: This is basic game theory. A conditional strategy is always preferrable to an unconditional strategy if the unconditional opponent's strategy is already known to their opponent. In such a scenario it's possible for one side to know exactly what the other side is going to do in advance. Unpredictability (being unprincipled) can therefore be quite strategically useful as it can help to avoid complete anticipation by the counterparty.

bloomj31: Kokesh never really entertains the possibility that people might be willing to do something that they might ordinarily think is wrong

John James: Yes he does. He's talking to such a person at the very moment you claim he isn't entertain the possiblity that such a person exists.

bloomj31: Yes but does he understand why?

I'm just going to leave that at the "yes" you agree with me that you were wrong because the rest of your comment is completely irrelevant.

Sounds about right. Why is that a bad thing? I might be willing to violate someone's rights if I think I need to in order to get what I want (or need.) I might not. It depends. I expect the same from everyone else.

Exactly. You're an egoist/nihilist...which is I find it ironic that you would expect me to attempt to explain to someone like you why something is "bad".

I weigh issues. I try to consider trade-offs. I try think of things in terms of cost-benefit. It seems a logical way to think. I may or may not support something, I try to consider all the information I can before arriving at decisions.

Yes, it's quite obvious you think saying these things and believing this way makes you sound reasoned and logical.

I don't want to be pinned down by any definite set of values. My values change depending on the context.

Again, exactly. You're a relativist. I don't see how you don't yet get this.

bloomj31:

The funny thing is that while this guy Bermas might see me as an enemy, I'm probably more sympathetic to his views that Kokesh is.

That's quite true. You are his enemy and he wouldn't even understand why. But at least he'd be correct in calling you that way.

I think you see what you want to see.

...said the egoist.

:EDIT:

Nice to see you reconsidered and admitted your guilt of the same offense you accuse others of.

I don't think Bermas knew how to present his points very well. So when he began to flounder he got embarrassed and frustrated. He was obviously not as well versed as Kokesh. Perhaps that's because Bermas has been a drone for so long that when he was finally asked real questions about the extent of his beliefs, he didn't know what to say. He looked to be struggling that whole time to me. Struggling to find the right words to describe his beliefs, struggling to find cohesion. Or maybe he just didn't realize that some of his beliefs were in contradiction with other beliefs. Perhaps he'd never given it enough thought.

Oh really? You mean like, "his depth of thought is as shallow as a rain puddle"? You mean like, "in a short conversation standing on a street curb someone has just rocked the foundation of the philosophical belief system he has held his entire life?"

bloomj31:

I know it took me a while to realize why I could never be a libertarian. Five years really.

That's funny. It only took me about two threads to figure that out about you.

I do think he was trying to save face,

Great. So you agree with me that you were wrong again.

but why? What's he got to lose here? His libertarian card?

I just told you...dignity. Ego. Again I find it ironic that someone such as yourself doesn't understand this.

Or maybe he was going through what I went through when I first encountered anarchists. Maybe he suddenly realized that he wasn't comfortable with the logical implications of his beliefs.

Oh really? You mean like, maybe he hadn't really thought much about beliefs he held for his entire life?...like "his depth of thought is as shallow as a rain puddle"?

Again I don't see how this is disagrees with what I said. In fact it seems like you just simply reword what I say and write it back to me, as if that would somehow refute me.

bloomj31:

Perhaps the doubt entering his mind is about the kind of company he's keeping. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to associate with anarchists. Kokesh looks scary to me, I'd want nothing to do with him.

Wait a minute. You just told me a few sentences ago that he was shocked by his introduction to anarchist philosophy...now you're telling me he's starting to have doubts about the kind of company he keeps? If he keeps company with anarchists, how the hell is he just now understanding what they're about?

Again, you don't make sense.

Nice to know you judge people solely by their appearance though.

This video? The distrust you've expressed for "left-libertarians" simply because they might not fit in lock stock and barrel with your ideas? The constant "who's a real libertarian" nonsense I've seen in the liberty movement since I became aware of it?

How is this video an example of libertarians "eating their own"? Bermas openly admitted he wanted socialized health care. (Sure he tried to claim "oh...well...only in certain circumstances"...but it's against freedom no matter how he tries to slice it.) Bermas is not "one of them" (i.e. libertarian), and I wouldn't be surprised if he openly stated he does not associate with that term.

And I don't think you could rightfully characterize my position as "distrust" of "left-libertarians". Anyone who feels like looking into it can read the thread on this. For one thing, I don't see how I expressed "distrust". Disgust maybe, but I don't see where trust comes in. And indeed, the entire crux of the argument was whether the term was even accurate...as in, does it even make sense to describe such people as "libertarian".

Again, if they change and distort the definition of "rights" to a dangerous degree which results in prescriptions that go against the institution of and rights inherent in private property, they aren't libertarians...so I don't see how how this is an example of anyone "eating their own".

I mean, if you want to try to claim that people who actually believe in freedom calling out and attacking statists for the statists that they are, or enemies of liberty for the advocates of tyranny they are, "eating their own" simply because the latter groups happen to call themselves libertarians, then I suppose that's your prerogative.

But that would just mean I could accuse you of eating your own for opposing me right now.

Isn't relativism great?

You guys regularly try to call out anyone who you don't think is libertarian enough.

I think people are called out for not being libertarian, period.

bloomj31:

I'm sure right now Rand Paul is the new persona non grata after backing Romney. You guys get mad at someone just for playing ball. It's silly to me.

Obviously. Again, you're a nihilist. Of course adherence to principle is silly to you. I honestly don't see how you don't understand this yet. You keep saying these things as if they're going to mean anything to people who disagree with you about the fundamental nature of human existence and interaction.

I honestly don't even know why you come here. I don't know why any of this stuff matters to you.

They cannot alter this position, they cannot compromise.

Not on their principles, no. That's kind of the point/definition. Normally I'd pose your question "Why is that a bad thing?"...but obviously I don't expect someone without morals to have an answer for that. Which again is why I don't see how you can speak as though you think it is bad. And why you bother trying to discuss any of this stuff.

They cannot support anything that might violate their principles even if it's only a little bit.

I'm just going to leave that at the "yes" you agree with me that you were wrong because the rest of your comment is completely irrelevant.

Or I could take the yes off and leave the rest of the question as "but does he understand why?" Do you understand why?

I also noticed that you conveniently left out how I said "under extraordinary circumstances, that perhaps his inexorable moral rules are really just guidelines for others."

It's not just that Kokesh knows that people do things that they might think were wrong under certain circumstances, it's that he doesn't make allowances for people who might hold somewhat different views under extraordinary circumstances. He treats them the same. I don't understand that. Why doesn't context matter?

Does Kokesh or do you, for that matter, understand that perhaps these moral values serve more as guidelines for some people than they do categorical imperatives? Do you understand why that might be?

JJ:

You're an egoist/nihilist...which is I find it ironic that you would expect me to attempt to explain to someone like you why something is "bad".

Well why do you think it's bad? Why do you want people to be rigidly principled? Would it serve your cause?

JJ:

That's quite true. You are his enemy and he wouldn't even understand why. But at least he'd be correct in calling you that way.

It all depends on what side he picks.

JJ:

That's funny. It only took me about two threads to figure that out about you.

Well it's taken me a long time to get here. To find conviction so to speak. Before I wasn't sure if I knew why I couldn't be a libertarian, now I know.

JJ:

So you agree with me that you were wrong again.

No I'm saying that he was trying to save face but mainly in front of Kokesh and the on-lookers. He got put on the spot. But really this doesn't matter. We're arguing over something we basically agree on which is that Bermas didn't do so well. But I said that in my first post.

JJ:

I just told you...dignity. Ego. Again I find it ironic that someone such as yourself doesn't understand this.

Why does he care about what Kokesh thinks?

JJ:

Wait a minute. You just told me a few sentences ago that he was shocked by his introduction to anarchist philosophy...now you're telling me he's starting to have doubts about the kind of company he keeps? If he keeps company with anarchists, how the hell is he just now understanding what they're about?

Maybe he doesn't really talk about this stuff that much. Maybe he just does his job and goes home? I dunno, I don't really know the guy. I'm just going on what I'm seeing in the video.

JJ:

Nice to know you just people solely by their appearance though.

Ofcourse I judge people based on appearance. Why wouldn't I? If you look crazy I'm going to assume you might be crazy. Kokesh looks nuts to me so I'm going to assume he's nuts. I wouldn't want to associate with him.

JJ:

Again, if they change and distort the definition of "rights" to a dangerous degree which results in prescriptions that go against the institution of and rights inherent in private property, they aren't libertarians...so I don't see how how this is an example of anyone "eating their own".

I mean, if you want to try to claim that people who actually believe in freedom calling out and attacking statists for the statists that they are, or enemies of liberty for the advocates of tyranny they are, "eating their own" simply because the latter groups happen to call themselves libertarians, then I suppose that's your prerogative.

I think you should take whoever you can get. I think you should work with people to get them wherever it is you want them to be along the ideological spectrum. I think it's unwise of you to try and purge "heretics". All you do is lessen your ranks and disenfranchise people. Perhaps you purify the idea base but is that really worth it? I don't think so.

JJ:

I think people are called out for not being libertarian, period.

Exactly, why do you care if someone's not quite anarchist? They might still be closer aligned to you than other people. Don't people have to start somewhere? Why do you go on witch hunts to cast out those not quite in agreement with libertarian principles? Do you really think that you're advancing freedom with your current strategy?

JJ:

Obviously. Again, you're a nihilist. Of course adherence to principle is silly to you. I honestly don't see how you don't understand this yet.

I get why I think what I think. I'm trying to understand why you think that unconditional rigid adherence to moral principle is a good idea. Or scratch that, a desirable position. Do you live a life that rigidly adheres to your moral principles regardless of context, regardless of consequence? Why or why not? And why on earth do you think anyone would want to live that way? That's what I'm really curious about.

JJ:

Not on their principles, no. That's kind of the point/definition. Normally I'd pose your question "Why is that a bad thing?"...but obviously I don't expect someone without morals to have an answer for that. Which again is why I don't see how you can speak as though you think it is bad.

I don't think it's "bad" I think it's foolhardy. I think it's undesirable. Why do you think refusing to compromise on principles under any circumstances is such a smart idea? Would you not initiate aggression to get anything in life? What if you could be reasonably certain nothing undesirable would happen to you personally?

JJ:

Exactly. So why you think essentially regurgitating someone's own understood positions to him and simply assuming they are bad, is going to accomplish anything, is beyond me.

I'm not really trying to refute you about how poorly Bermas did, we're both in agreement on that though my perception of his faults might be different from yours. But I don't think that matters. I agree that Bermas did a bad job. I said that in my initial post. I'm trying to explain why I didn't find this interchange to be a very compelling argument for voluntarism. Why is rigid adherence to principle values (perhaps to the point of it being self detrimental) a more desirable position to take than a position that at least makes room for possible exceptions? Why worry so much about principle values, particularly if they might deny you access to something you might want and could otherwise have if you didn't hold principle values or even if you were willing to break those values under extraordinary circumstances?

I mean isn't the purpose of this thread at least partly to show why the voluntarist argument is so compelling?

Or I could take the yes off and leave the rest of the question as "but does he understand why?" Do you understand why?

How is that at all relevant? You said "Kokesh never really entertains the possibility that people might be willing to do something that they might ordinarily think is wrong". I said that's obviously nonsense, since he's talking to such a person. Case closed. "Why" is completely irrelevant. If you want to make some new assertion and debate that, go ahead.

Well why do you think it's bad? Why do you want people to be rigidly principled? Would it serve your cause?

Well, given that my "cause" is to have people abide by the non-agression principle and the system of property rights described here, I would say yes...having people be rigidly principled would serve...you know, given that that is kind of the goal itself.

(I gotta say, I'm starting to get kinda bored.)

It all depends on what side he picks.

Not really. You are an enemy of freedom. He alleges he favors freedom. That I believe. Whether or not he comes to understand what true freedom looks like and what method of order maximizes that is not really relevant. Whether he comes to realize the truth of the matter and abandons his support of the State, or remains blind and continues in his "limited government" thinking, either way he is ideologically opposed to your nihilism.

No I'm saying that he was trying to save face but mainly in front of Kokesh and the on-lookers.

As opposed to...God?

Why does he care about what Kokesh thinks?

You literally just admitted "he was trying to save face but mainly in front of Kokesh and the on-lookers"...and now you're asking me why does he care about what Kokesh thinks?

Seriously?

bloomj31:

JJ:

Wait a minute. You just told me a few sentences ago that he was shocked by his introduction to anarchist philosophy...now you're telling me he's starting to have doubts about the kind of company he keeps? If he keeps company with anarchists, how the hell is he just now understanding what they're about?

Maybe he doesn't really talk about this stuff that much. Maybe he just does his job and goes home? I dunno, I don't really know the guy. I'm just going on what I'm seeing in the video.

You knowing him is irrelevant. I was simply pointing out your assertions contradict each other.

I'm really growing less and less interested in you.

Ofcourse I judge people based on appearance. Why wouldn't I? If you look crazy I'm going to assume you might be crazy. Kokesh looks nuts to me so I'm going to assume he's nuts. I wouldn't want to associate with him.

Wonderful philosophy.

I think you should take whoever you can get.

Are you serious? We're talking about an ideological battle and you're suggesting that people who's fundamental ideological beliefs oppose each other could just simply all of a sudden agree with each other in effort to "take whoever they can get". That doesn't even make sense. If they fundamentally disagree, no one has been "gotten" at all.

I have no idea what you're even talking about.

bloomj31:

I think you should work with people to get them wherever it is you want them to be along the ideological spectrum. I think it's unwise of you to try and purge "heretics". All you do is lessen your ranks and disenfranchise people. Perhaps you purify the idea base but is that really worth it? I don't think so.

No one ever said persuasion is not attempted. But it sounds like you're saying that if persuasion is not achieved, people whose ideologies are fundamentally opposed could simply agree just to "keep the band together".

One more time...

a) there never was any "band" in the first place, for, if they fundamentally disagree, then there are no "ranks" in which these people ever stood together at all.

b) even assuming they were together at some point, it sounds like you're saying if once they disagree, and can't come to an agreement, they should simply pretend the disagreement doesn't exist.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Exactly, why do you care if someone's not quite anarchist?

Why do you care whether I care or not? You're a nihilist. Again I still have no idea why you're even here and why you even spend time talking about this stuff.

They might still be closer aligned to you than other people.

And I'm sure I could find rapists and murderers that you are closer aligned to than other people. Does that mean you should "team up" with them? I mean after all, if you try to disassociate yourself from such people, all you do is lessen your ranks and disenfranchise people. Perhaps you make yourself look a little less bad in the eyes of people who actually have a morals, but is that really worth it?

bloomj31:

Why do you go on witch hunts to cast out those not quite in agreement with libertarian principles?

I don't. Why do you care?

Do you really think that you're advancing freedom with your current strategy?

Do you really think you're getting anywhere by presenting me with your relativist nonsense as if it were some kind of superior reasoned philosophy?

I get why I think what I think.

Congratulations?

I'm trying to understand why you think that unconditional rigid adherence to moral principle is a good idea. Or scratch that, a desirable position. Do you live a life that rigidly adheres to your moral principles? Why or why not? That's what I'm really curious about.

I wish I could say the same thing about you...that I'm curious as to why you think egoist/nihilist relativism is a "good idea, scratch that, desirable position"...but I'm really not.

As I said, I'm getting quite bored with this.

Would you not initiate aggression to get anything in life? What if you could be reasonably certain nothing undesirable would happen to you personally? What's the payoff?

Are you seriously asking me if I would aggress violence on someone simply because I thought I could gain something and get away with it?...and wondering what's wrong with that?

I still don't get what you're looking for. You've basically admitted you don't believe in right or wrong, you've stated multiple times you don't have morals/ don't take moral positions/ don't think about morals, etc. (despite arbitrarily making moral judgements when it suits you), and you've essentially shown you are indifferent toward minimizing conflict. So I have no idea what you expect to hear from me, or why you'd want to hear it.

Again, you're a relativist asking someone to explain to you why one philosophy is better than another. You're like a blind man asking someone to show you something.

bloomj31:

Why is rigid adherence to principle values (perhaps to the point of it being self detrimental) a more desirable position to take than a position based mostly on personal desires? Why worry so much about principle values, particularly if they might deny you access to something you might want and could otherwise have if you didn't hold principle values or even if you were willing to break those values under extraordinary circumstances?

Basically you're asking me why egoism isn't a desirable philosophy? Why people simply and quite literally doing whatever they wanted without any real order maintained by established law based in fundamental principles which minimize conflict?

It still kind of amazes me that there actually exist people who would need such an explanation. But only kind of.

As of course, you yourself have contradicted this view multiple times in your praise of government and law enforcement. Yet another reason I'm growing less and less interested in dialogue with you.

I mean isn't the purpose of this thread at least partly to show why the voluntarist argument is so compelling?

Not really. It's to show an example of an eloquent argument being made.

I edited a lot of my original post. You didn't seem to include much of it in your response.

Well it's not my fault if you publish something and then go back and attempt to rewrite it after I've started to respond.

I feel like we're talking past one another. But it doesn't matter. I think I've said what I have to say.

We're not talking past anything. You are just asking for something which you don't believe exists. You're a blind man asking to be shown something. You don't seem to understand the implications of your own relativism.

You constantly contradict yourself, you have no moral compass, you are basically an egoist, and you don't seem to care about any of those things. Which is all why I have no idea why you come here and attempt to discuss these things. But it's also why I easily grow bored with you. And most likely why you grow bored in discussing these things as well...you don't really care about these things and you don't really have a consistent philosophy for anything, so you're basically a tumbleweed going wherever the breeze takes you at the moment you're viewing the thread.

Your dialogue never progresses anywhere because you're a nihilist and can essentially never follow a reasoned and logical path, since you have no real foundational basis on which to build (or argue, for that matter).

It's actually quite interesting that people engage you as long as they do. This is really only my 4th post to you and I really have almost no interest in any more discussion you might try to have.

Your dialogue never progresses anywhere because you're a nihilist and can essentially never follow a reasoned and logical path, since you have no real foundational basis on which to build (or argue, for that matter).

Hey, there's no need to redefine words. Not everyone who isn't a moral absolutist is a nihilist. Or maybe they are in your world; I dunno.

John James @ bloomj31: You have no real consistent philosophy for anything, as you've shown over the course of your posts here. You essentially just go along with whatever seems appealing to you and basically think violating the rights of others is fine as long as it's a case that you don't really care about, or it concerns something you don't like anyway, or especially, if you personally benefit from it.

Still you edited a post earlier in this thread and I waited for you to finish but I don't care really, none of these posts were really for you.

They were for anyone else who might be on the ropes about engaging people like you on these issues.

Word to the wise: it's a waste of time for anyone who's not dead set on taking a completely uncompromising moral view of the world no matter the consequences, the context, the purpose of the action, the extraordinary nature of the action etc. They will go after anyone who values things conditionally, even if it's only under very narrowly special conditions that you might disagree, as can be witnessed in the video and this thread.

They will never advocate the initiation of aggression for any reason, no matter what the cause, no matter the circumstance, no matter the context etc. They will never consider an alternative ultimate goal than absolute freedom and they will never compromise with anyone on anything to achieve that goal. There is no middle ground whatsoever.

All people like John James seem to ever care about is being morally right, damn the torpedoes. I could never live that way and I hope that anyone who feels the same way saves valuable time by reading this and steering clear.

bloomj31: You have no real consistent philosophy for anything, as you've shown over the course of your posts here. You essentially just go along with whatever seems appealing to you and basically think violating the rights of others is fine as long as it's a case that you don't really care about, or it concerns something you don't like anyway, or especially, if you personally benefit from it.

bloomj31: Sounds about right.

So what? Is having a 100 percent morally consistent philosophy the single most important thing in the world? I don't always see every situation in the same way. I look at facts, I think about context. I may find certain arguments compelling in one instance and less so in another. I make exceptions to my guidelines when I think they're deserved. I don't care if my philosophy isn't 100 percent consistent. To be 100 percent consistent, I'd have to embrace libertarianism and libertarianism is awful if it's taken to its most extreme logical conclusions. Who in the hell would want to live that way?

I do care about what appeals to me, I am willing to violate the "rights" of others (whatever those may be) if I think it's warranted and I do give different levels of consideration to different people, actions and things and I do give special consideration to things that I believe will benefit me.

This does not strike me as odd. What strikes me as odd is that anyone else would live any other way.

All people like John James seem to ever care about is being morally right, damn the torpedoes. I could never live that way

...but you can live with no real consistent philosophy for anything, essentially going along with whatever seems appealing to you at the time, basically believing that violating the rights of others is fine as long as it's a case that you don't really care about, or it concerns something you don't like anyway, or especially, if you personally benefit from it.

You can live claiming to not really believe in right or wrong, and to not have morals/ not take moral positions/ don't think about morals, etc. (despite arbitrarily making moral judgements when it suits you), and essentially being indifferent toward minimizing conflict.

You can live believing that quite literally people should do whatever they want without any real order maintained by established law based in fundamental principles which minimize conflict.

Got it.

P.S.

Libertarianism is not just about being morally right, and that is not all libertarians care about. This is a mischaracterization from someone who obviously has no real understanding of what he's talking about.

The troll claimed I was redefining words. I was merely proving him wrong (again).

Looks like "Someone's jimmies are ruffled."

I do care about what appeals to me, I am willing to violate the "rights" of others (whatever those may be) if I think it's warranted and I do give different levels of consideration to different people, actions and things and I do give special consideration to things that I believe will benefit me.

Super philosophy. Just don't expect any sympathy from me when someone who shares your worldview sees it to benefit them to take a Louisville Slugger to your cranium.

This does not strike me as odd. What strikes me as odd is that anyone else would live any other way.

It strikes you odd that people might actually believe in morality and "right and wrong", and that perhaps people simply doing whatever they feel like is not the best philosophy to live by?

I find it odd that you find that odd. But hey, what do you care, right? You're a nihilist.

You can live claiming to not really believe in right or wrong, and to not have morals/ not take moral positions/ don't think about morals, etc. (despite arbitrarily making moral judgements when it suits you), and essentially being indifferent toward minimizing conflict.

You can live believing that quite literally people should do whatever they want without any real order maintained by established law based in fundamental principles which minimize conflict.

What utter nonsense. I don't believe in a knowable absolute right and wrong. I believe there is a God but I cannot ask him, so that means I can only consult my brain. My brain generates value judgments all the time. So does everyone else's so what? Because I can't know for sure what's right and what's wrong, I try to come to an educated basis for making a moral judgment.

I find it very hard to assign moral values to actions without knowing more about them. I need information to come to moral conclusions, not just a base description of the act itself. I like to have data to consider.

Minimizing conflict is just one goal I have. It's not always easy and it doesn't always take priority for me. Conflicts are inevitable, they're part of human nature.

I do not believe that people should literally do whatever they want, but I do think that they should at least consider what they want sometimes even if it means that someone else might not like it. I believe in giving priority to oneself in considerations where one is involved because everyone else is going to do the same thing anyways. If that leads to conflict sometimes then so be it. Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways.

You say I don't understand you, well I don't think you understand me. But that's because we're incomprehensible to one another. I literally cannot understand libertarians and you don't seem to be able to understand anyone who isn't exactly like you.

Just don't expect any sympathy from me when someone who shares your worldview sees it to benefit them to take a Louisville Slugger to your cranium.

What good would your sympathy do for me anyways? You're a nobody and you probably wouldn't help me even if you did have sympathy for me because you'd probably rather post about it than actually do something. What did you do for the people who got handcuffed for two hours or the people who get "molested" by the TSA everyday? What about the people who've been indefinitely detained by the US government?

Your sympathy for those people has gotten them posts on an obscure website dedicated to a marginalist moral philosophy. I'm sure they're thrilled. Excuse me if I don't put much stock in you or your sympathy.

John James:

It strikes you odd that people might actually believe in morality and "right and wrong", and that perhaps people simply doing whatever they feel like is not the best philosophy to live by?

It strikes me as odd that people like you might take morality so seriously that they'd do anything to stick by that code, even if it meant something awful for themselves. Particularly people who probably don't believe in God a heaven or a hell. It's not that I'm telling people like you to just do whatever you feel like, I'm telling them to not get stuck on the philosophy to the point that it might impede their lives in some way. There's no reason why context can't matter sometimes.

I believe in giving priority to oneself in considerations where one is involved because everyone else is going to do the same thing anyways. If that leads to conflict sometimes then so be it. Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways.

Again, super philosophy. The rapist should just do his thing, giving himself priority over the little girl because everyone else (including her) is going to do the same thing anyway. If that leads to conflict sometimes then so be it. I mean, he might as well do what appeals to him.

Fires are going to happen somewhere along the line anyways. Might as well start some yourself, right?

You say I don't understand you

I said you obviously didn't understand the libertarian position. And you don't. You literally just said "All people like John James seem to ever care about is being morally right". That is a false statement. (But then again, you were lucky enough to include the subjective diction of "seem", so you could certainly argue that it isn't a false statement as technically (thanks to that one word) it's an opinion.)

I literally cannot understand libertarians and you don't seem to be able to understand anyone who isn't.

Oh no, I understand plenty of non-libertarians quite well. I just don't really understand nihilists. At least not in the sense of why anyone would think that kind of philosophy would lead to less conflict or greater prosperity.

I am willing to violate the "rights" of others (whatever those may be) if I think it's warranted

The rapist should just do his thing, giving himself priority over the little girl because everyone else (including her) is going to do the same thing anyway. If that leads to conflict sometimes then so be it. I mean, he might as well do what appeals to him.

Fires are going to happen somewhere along the line anyways. Might as well start some yourself, right?

Rapists are going to rape and arsonists are going to set fire to things. There's no way to stop that. Some people will always be given to such activities. I'm not going to advocate moralizing to them, I'm not going to advocate telling them why they shouldn't do it. I am going to tell them that if they're caught, I'll be happy to see them made miserable for a very long time. Particularly the rapists.

I wouldn't cry to anyone about right and wrong, that would be a waste of time. I'd either kill the guy myself, he'd kill me or I'd go to the cops afterwards and report the incident. Cops don't ask moral questions. Those are my options.

John James:

Not really sure. Perhaps you should ask yourself that question when you go looking for it.

Isn't going to happen. You're useless to me regardless.

John James:

Right. Only you should be able to do that.

After all, what matters is what you think is warranted, right?

No, everyone will be asking themselves that same thing. "What's best for me here?" They will consider what others will do in response. I will do the same. I take consequences into consideration, so do other people. But if I think it's a special circumstance warranting special action then I'll do it. I imagine other people will do the same and we'll figure it out afterwards. What matters to me personally is what I think is warranted, that doesn't mean other people will feel the same way.

John James:

At least not in the sense of why anyone would think that kind of philosophy would lead to less conflict or greater prosperity.

Conflicts are going to happen regardless, that's out of my control. Prosperity is a nice goal but ultimately something I have no control over either. I focus on my own prosperity instead, that's something I can influence more directly.

Rapists are going to rape and arsonists are going to set fire to things. There's no way to stop that. Some people will always be given to such activities. I'm not going to advocate moralizing to them, I'm not going to advocate telling them why they shouldn't do it. I am going to tell them that if they're caught, I'll be happy to see them made miserable for a very long time. Particularly the rapists.

Our chasing them is as inevitable as their actions. Rape itself was probably not always seen as wrong in the ancestral environment but it's come to be viewed in our society with great disdain. I don't really know all the history behind it but suffice it to say, we don't tolerate the act. We view it as we would any other social act widely viewed as antisocial. We don't like their actions because our brains tell us we mustn't and we chase them because our brains tell us we must chase them and catch them and hurt them and they rape people because their brains tell them they must. I care because my brain enables me to care. I can empathize with them and so I do. I myself would not like to be raped or set on fire and so I want to hurt anyone who would do such a thing. This is something my brain has evolved to be able to do over time.

Rapists are going to rape and arsonists are going to set fire to things. There's no way to stop that.

Exactly! So you might as well molest a few children and burn a few buildings down. It's gonna happen anyway right?

Super philosophy.

I am going to tell them that if they're caught, I'll be happy to see them made miserable for a very long time. Particularly the rapists.

Why? They're just living by your philosophy.

I wouldn't cry to anyone about right and wrong,

I didn't say that. I said don't go crying to people who believe in "right and wrong"...and evidently you won't take that advice...

bloomj31:

I'd go to the cops afterwards and report.

Isn't going to happen.

Hehe. You have no idea.

You're useless to me regardless.

You really have no idea.

No, everyone will be asking themselves that same thing. "What's best for me here?" They will consider what others will do in response. I will do the same. I take consequences into consideration, so do other people. But if I think it's a special circumstance warranting special action then I'll do it. I imagine other people will do the same and we'll figure it out afterwards.

Yep. Guy says it's best for him to have your facial features in different places. Normally he wouldn't do it, but it's a "special circumstance". No big deal really. "Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways." He might as well do whatever he feels is best for him, even if it "violates the 'rights' of others (whatever those may be)".

The bloomj31 way.

Conflicts are going to happen regardless, that's out of my control.

Exactly. So why try to avoid them? Might as well give yourself priority and do whatever you feel like even if it violates the rights of others. Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways.

I focus on my own prosperity instead, that's something I can influence more directly.

Exactly. Might as well rob the next person you see. I mean, sure it violates their rights, but you're focused on your own prosperity, and you gotta give yourself priority. "If that leads to conflict sometimes then so be it. Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways"...right?

I gotta tell ya, this philosophy is looking more and more appealing by the post.

Exactly! So you might as well molest a few children and burn a few buildings down. It's gonna happen anyway right?

Super philosophy.

Doesn't interest me. I'm not inclined to such acts.

John James:

Why? They're just living by your philosophy.

Just because they're applying a certain part of my philosophy doesn't mean I have to agree with what they've done as a result. I'm not required to be consistent like you are.

John James:

I said don't go crying to people who believe in "right and wrong"...and evidently you won't take that advice...

Uh...ok. I can go crying to anyone I want to. Whether they believe in right and wrong is irrelevant though. What matters is that they might be able to help me. You couldn't help me. Who have you helped?

John James:

Yep. Guy says it's best for him to have your facial features in different places. Normally he wouldn't do it, but it's a "special circumstance". No big deal really. "Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways." He might as well do whatever he feels is best for him, even if it "violates the 'rights' of others (whatever those may be)".

Exactly. So why try to avoid them? Might as well give yourself priority and do whatever you feel like even if it violates the rights of others. Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways.

Life doesn't work that way. Other people have values too, not just me. I don't randomly seek conflict it's not in my interest or in my nature.

John James:

Might as well rob the next person you see. I mean, sure it violates their rights, but you're focused on your own prosperity, and you gotta give yourself priority. "If that leads to conflict sometimes then so be it. Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways", right?

It's not that easy, they'll probably try to stop me and even if I do succeed there's the possibility of jail and I really wouldn't want to go to jail.

How do you know you wouldn't like it? You should probably try it. After all, those things are going to happen anyways!

Just because they're applying a certain part of my philosophy doesn't mean I have to agree with what they've done as a result. I'm not required to be consistent like you are.

I didn't say you were. I was mostly just curious what you'd say. Obviously a nihilist like you could see fit to decapitate someone who smiled at them, and have no issue going through with it. I'm not arguing you'd be inconsistent in your "literally do whatever you want" philosophy. I actually am not quite sure how that's even possible. You feel like raping a girl. Fine. Someone else feels like cutting your balls off for it, fine. No big deal. He does what he feels like, you do what you feel like. S'all good.

Uh...ok. I can go crying to anyone I want to.

Well, sure you can. It's a figure of speech. I thought people understood that.

Whether they believe in right and wrong is irrelevant though. What matters is that they might be able to help me.

Ah but whether or not they would help you would most likely be largely dependent upon their belief in "right and wrong". See, if they were all like you, they'd ask "What's best for me here?"...and see you're a nobody who has nothing to offer them that would interest them in sticking their neck out and wasting their time listing to your whining and tracking down some guy who was evidently just doing what was best for him.

You couldn't help me.

hehe. It's usually annoying when people presume to talk as if they know who you are...but in this case, it's actually kind of funny.

Easy for you to say, while praising cops who make it less likely someone would do such a thing precisely becaus they abide by a different philosophy than you.

Life doesn't work that way. Other people have values too, not just me.

Right, but you're more important. Might as well give yourself priority and do whatever you feel like even if it violates the rights of others. Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways. Right?

I don't randomly seek conflict it's not in my interest or in my nature.

It wouldn't be random...it would be doing stuff that was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways.

bloomj31:

John James:

Might as well rob the next person you see. I mean, sure it violates their rights, but you're focused on your own prosperity, and you gotta give yourself priority. "If that leads to conflict sometimes then so be it. Conflict was going to happen somewhere along the line anyways", right?

It's not that easy, they'll probably try to stop me and even if I do succeed there's the possibility of jail and I really wouldn't want to go to jail.

Oh I see. So you'll just have to make sure you don't get caught. Because that's all that matters.

Our chasing them is as inevitable as their actions. Rape itself was probably not always seen as wrong in the ancestral environment but it's come to be viewed in our society with great disdain. I don't really know all the history behind it but suffice it to say, we don't tolerate the act. We view it as we would any other social act widely viewed as antisocial. We don't like their actions because our brains tell us we mustn't and we chase them because our brains tell us we must chase them and catch them and hurt them and they rape people because their brains tell them they must. I care because my brain enables me to care. I can empathize with them and so I do. I myself would not like to be raped or set on fire and so I want to hurt anyone who would do such a thing. This is something my brain has evolved to be able to do over time.

The tail wags the dog.

That was from me, not JJ, btw.

Why is chasing them inevitable? I thought you'd just do whatever you wanted. You know. Or wait, that's too consistent, and your philosophy of non-philosophy is supposed to protect against having to be consistent, as you mentioned earlier. But then, inevitability sounds an awful lot like consistency. so I guess you won't chase them. The rapist doesn't view it as wrong. He viewed it as all right at the time. So why care? It's all relative. There's not morality. Right? Why don't you tolerate the act? Why does it matter whether someone is antisocial? Why would you care what your brain tells you? Does it have some right to tell you what to do? Why do you think their brains told them they must rape? Maybe their brain told them not to, but then they thought, why should I care what my brain thinks? Rape seems like a good idea right now. You care because your brain enables you to care, and they rape because their physical attributes allows them to rape. Caring is gonna happen and rape is gonna happen. So why do anything about it? Why care if someone would want to? How can your brain hurt anyone? Are you an x-man?

But then, inevitability sounds an awful lot like consistency. so I guess you won't chase them.

In all actuality I probably won't personally chase them. But other people will. And I will support them in that endeavor. It's inevitable that I do this because I have a tendency to show deference to authority. I don't really understand it but it happens nonetheless. That's good enough for me.

excel:

So why care? It's all relative. There's not morality. Right?

It is all relative and yet some people think it's not. But that's no more their choice than it is mi choice to see things as relative. My brain hasn't been presented with enough evidence to conclude morals are objective. If it had then I would've come to a different conclusion and I'd probably profess to a belief in objective morals. And it's not that I don't have moral feelings, it's that I can't understand how they could possibly contain some sort of objective truth.

excel:

Why don't you tolerate the act? Why does it matter whether someone is antisocial? Why would you care what your brain tells you?

Because I just don't. Can't really explain it. Just feels wrong. Not sure why. Really has nothing to do with my rational mind. But I still don't know if rape really is objectively wrong. My brain tells me what to think and do and that's what I do and think. I can't ignore my brain because I am my brain and my brain is me.

Excel:

Does it have some right to tell you what to do? Why do you think their brains told them they must rape? Maybe their brain told them not to, but then they thought, why should I care what my brain thinks?

It doesn't just have the right, it's literally the source of action. Without a brain man cannot act. I don't really know why their brains told them to rape but it's evident that they did. It's impossible for people to not care what their brain thinks, the thing they perceive as "them" is also a manifestation of their brain. Mind and body are not separate entities.

excel:

You care because your brain enables you to care, and they rape because their physical attributes allows them to rape. Caring is gonna happen and rape is gonna happen. So why do anything about it? Why care if someone would want to? How can your brain hurt anyone? Are you an x-man?

Because that's just what happens. That's the outcome our brains choose. It doesn't require an objective moral justification. It's probably an evolved psychological mechanism that increased the genetic survival of the entities that held those particular genes in our ancestral environment combined with the cultural belief that rape is wrong. Why is rape always wrong? I have no idea. But I've been told my whole life that it is. So they rape, we chase them. Simple as that.